"THE SUDAN ABDUCTEE DATABASE":

YET MORE QUESTIONABLE PROPAGANDA

In late May 2003, the Rift Valley Institute, a non-governmental
organisation based in Kenya and Britain, launched what it
termed "the Sudan Abductee Database". This was
said to be a "database of abduction
and slavery cases". The Institute claimed that it had
details of "11,105 victims of abduction". It was
further claimed that these had been abducted from "rebel-held
areas by Government-backed tribal militias from Northern
Sudan".(1)

Sudan has been wracked by civil war for decades. Since
1983 the war in the south has been fought against the Government
of Sudan by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). It
is a conflict that has been distorted by the deliberate
use of propaganda. One propaganda theme has been that of
"slavery". The Rift Valley Institute itself admits
that the subject of "abduction and slavery" has
been "beset by controversy". Sadly, from the tone
and methodology of this "database" and its presentation,
it is clear that the "Sudan Abductee Database"
is itself
little more than a re-packaging of controversial and previously
discredited propaganda.

The project was "designed and managed" by Jok
Madut Jok, and John Ryle. Both are established figures in
the anti-Sudan industry that has emerged in the course of
the Sudanese conflict. Jok has a vested interest in
attempting to validate claims of "slavery" in
Sudan. He is the author of 'War and Slavery in Sudan' which
refers to "Arab slave traders" in Sudan and describes
"slavery" as deliberate government policy. Such
claims have clearly been of concern to groups such as Anti-Slavery
International, the world's oldest human rights organisation.
In a
submission to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
in Geneva, Anti-Slavery International publicly stated:

"There is a danger that wrangling over slavery can
distract us from abuses which are actually part of government
policy - which we do not believe slavery to be. Unless accurately
reported, the issue can become a tool for indiscriminate
and wholly undeserved prejudice against Arabs and Muslims.
[We] are worried that some media reports of 'slave markets',
stocked by Arab slave traders - which [we] consider distort
reality - fuel such prejudice." (2)

The claims by Jok and Ryle of slave raids as government
policy have also previously been denied by Sudan specialists
such as the then co-director of African Rights, Alex de
Waal, who has stated that: "there is no
evidence for centrally-organized, government-directed slave
raiding or slave trade." (3)

The methodology of the project was also very questionable
from the beginning. In its press release the Rift Valley
Institute outlined what it termed the "design and execution
of the research". It stated that the area subject to
the "research" was "under the control of
the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, the SPLM/SPLA".
It was also stated that the "researchers" were
"locally recruited and trained". This had
immediate implications for the accuracy and objectivity
of the "research"

On 12 January 2000, for example, the Sudan People's Liberation
Army (SPLA) issued an ultimatum to non-governmental organisations
within SPLA-controlled areas of southern Sudan. These groups
had to sign the
SPLA's 'Memorandum of Understanding' strictly controlling
their activities and dictating their relationship with the
SPLA. The SPLA Memorandum included, amongst other contentious
items, SPLA control of whom NGOs could employ as local Sudanese
staff.

The Rift Valley Institute's belief that it would be able
to obtain objective and untainted data from areas controlled
by an organisation said by The New York Times to have "behaved
like an occupying army,killing, raping and pillaging"
(4), and described by 'The Economist' as "little more
than an armed gang of Dinkas...killing, looting and raping
(5) amply illustrates a naiveté which calls the "Sudan
Abductee Database" and any of its conclusions into
question.

Meaningful, reliable data within war-zones dominated by
an authoritarian organisation with researchers approved
by that same organisation is simply impossible. To use some
simple analogies, would they expect to be
able to have conducted meaningful research within areas
controlled at the time by the Khmer Rouge with personnel
supplied by the Khmer Rouge, or within UNITA-controlled
areas of Angola with personnel approved by
UNITA, or within Iraq with researchers controlled by Saddam
Hussein? Would they have expected to have come out with
objective results?

It is not just the SPLA's intimidation that would have
distorted the data. The SPLA's previous involvement in the
systematic and fraudulent use of "slavery" and
"slave redemption" themes for propaganda and financial
motives was graphically illustrated by articles in four
newspapers of record, 'The Irish Times', London's 'Independent
on
Sunday', 'The Washington Post' and 'International Herald
Tribune', in February 2002. (6) Non-governmental organisations
such as the Swiss-based Christian Solidarity International
(CSI) and Baroness Cox's Christian Solidarity Worldwide
(CSW) were, at the very least, systematically misled by
the SPLA into claiming that they had identified and "redeemed"
thousands of Sudanese "slaves". 'The Washington
Post' reported that in numerous documented instances "the
slaves weren't slaves at all, but people gathered locally
and instructed to pretend they were returning from bondage".
(7) The 'Independent on Sunday' reported that it was able
to "reveal that 'redemption' has often been a carefully
orchestrated fraud". (8) The SPLA was forced to admit
that up
to 95 percent of "slave redemptions" were fraudulent,
the "slaves" having been coached in how to act
and what to say. All this was assisted by locally recruited,
SPLA-approved translators.

The 'Irish Times' stated that in many cases "the process
is nothing more than a careful deceit, stage-managed by
corrupt officials...In reality, many of the 'slaves' are
fakes...The children are coached in stories of abduction
and abuse...Interpreters may be instructed to twist their
answers". Then, as now, 'The Irish Times' concluded:
"Put simply, the numbers didn't add up."

Dubious Partners

The timing of this particular "database" is at
best simply inept and at worst deliberately provocative.
This project appears at precisely the time that a negotiated
settlement of the Sudanese conflict appears to bevery close.
It would seem that rather than working towards building
confidence and reconciliation within this peace process,
the Rift Valley Institute would rather revisit old, questionable
and discredited propaganda themes.

The Rift Valley Institute's choice of partner organisations
in the United States is also unfortunate. The American launch
of the "Sudan Abductee Database" was at Freedom
House in Washington-DC. Freedom House has been at the forefront
of the conservative and ultra-conservative anti-Sudan lobby
within the United States. Freedom House and its various
centres have made several outlandish claims about Sudan.

On religion, as but one example, Freedom House has claimed
that there is "genocidal persecution" of Christians
in Sudan. (9) The Center for Religious Freedom, a division
of Freedom House, has also claimed of Sudan that "No
place on earth is religious persecution more brutal".(10)
In November 2001, the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan noted that
while there were some difficulties, "there is no religious
persecution as such". (11) Any independent observer
would note that there is a world of difference
between describing Sudan as the world's worst religious,
most brutal, genocidal, persecutor and the Special Rapporteur's
conclusion. (12) Freedom House, however, is the organisation
the Rift Valley Institute chose to work with within the
United States.

The "Sudan Abductee Database" is a disappointing,
crassly-timed waste of resources within southern Sudan.
Those groups that have funded it could have spent their
money in far more constructive ways, ways that would
have reinforced and assisted with the Sudanese peace process
rather than deliberately or unconsciously undermining it.
There will be those in Sudan and elsewhere who will see
it as nothing more than an attempt to
resuscitate the allegations of "slavery" and "slave
redemption" so definitively exposed last year.

Notes

1. See "New Research on Slavery in Sudan", Press
Release by the Rift Valley Institute, 28 May 2003.

2. The reference number of this submission to the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights is TS/S/4/97, and is
available to view on the Anti-Slavery International web-site
at http://www.charitynet.org/asi/sub
mit5.htm

11. The Speech of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation
of Human Rights in the Sudan delivered to the Third Committee
of the General Assembly, 8 November 2001, New York.

12. See, for example, 'Religion in Sudan', European-Sudanese
Public Affairs Council, London, June 2002; and 'Perceptions
and Reality: Christianity Within Sudan', European-Sudanese
Public Affairs Council, London, June 2002 both available
at www.espac.org